6/21 Update - What about the Monster Builder?

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
Could the powers that be update the 6/21 thread to let us know the status of the Monster Builder? We heard recent announcements of coming improvements. Are those coming on 6/21? If not, any idea whether the improvements are further than two months away? Or what the improvements might be?

Thanks for your time.

Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips!
Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).

Many DMs await news.
I hope that this thread won't distract the team from accomplishing the task they set for themselves this month. Namely, actually releasing last month's update for the CB. 

You have to shoot low with these guys.

 
Yeah i only see Content upload and the CB Marketplace overhaul. Other Features ad on from the CB or the MB are untold.


The MB needs help desperatly. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

A monster builder that can create custom monsters would interfere with their ability to charge DMs mincrotrasnaction fees for the inclusion of various monsters in the VT.  Since all the work they've been doing on the VT these past few months has been adding a microtransactions infrastructure to it, I don't see why they'd go and shoot their new business model in the foot with a working MB.
Yes, at least an update on the status or plans for the MB would be appreciated.

As a side note, the mods here have the patience of saints.  They're better people than I am in that respect.  It's unfortunate that the same five or six people have to crap on so many threads and the rest of us have to read it even with blocklists in effect.  I promise that's the last I'll say on that subject, for a while at least.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

A monster builder that can create custom monsters would interfere with their ability to charge DMs mincrotrasnaction fees for the inclusion of various monsters in the VT.  Since all the work they've been doing on the VT these past few months has been adding a microtransactions infrastructure to it, I don't see why they'd go and shoot their new business model in the foot with a working MB.



Wow, this is quite a theory. If it's true, I'd be extremely mad as will a lot of other DM's. In fact, the lack of a functioning MB is my own personal red line. I'm waiting patiently to see what happens. If your theory turns out to be true, I'm done with DDI.

So... I'd like some clarity. Can you explain exactly how WotC has been "adding a microtransactions infrastructure" to the VT? I've used it a few times and I don't see that from my end. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just not seeing it. Please elaborate.
Style75, there is no microtransaction with the VT whatsoever yet, just Damon_Tor wild guessing and then passing his opinions for facts until he get proven right or wrong. Watch, he will soon refer us to the CoC again huh Damon ?...Wink 

My opinion differ from his but its still just an opinion too, just little less hyperbolic. I think are currently working on Customization features for the MB (didn't they say it ?) and that VT will have microtransaction to allow non-DDi subscribers to Join Table, like we tested and were told was for. May be a Deluxe VT supplement will be sold seperatly giving you access to more Tile Sets that's another possibility.  But the VT will have lot more Tiles and Tokens once it will be released, as we heard this was a crude selection to be just enought to actually BETA Test the VT. They also tested larger Tiles and Map Art scanned directly from Dungeon Magazines, as well as Maps such as the one found in Keep on the Shadowfell. And they have a system of Event which they currently use to showcase exclusive Organize Play Event Content, which you cannot EXPORT. It is also possible that in the future adventures are sold throught the Event channel, or even just exclusive Maps. 

But no one know for sure what will be sold in microtransaction in the end as neither Steve, Trevor or Josh have said anything concrete on the Business model for the VT yet... 

So let's wait for more info from WoTC before jumping the gun.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

A monster builder that can create custom monsters would interfere with their ability to charge DMs mincrotrasnaction fees for the inclusion of various monsters in the VT.  Since all the work they've been doing on the VT these past few months has been adding a microtransactions infrastructure to it, I don't see why they'd go and shoot their new business model in the foot with a working MB.



I think this is a little over the top.  The microtransactions are more likely for tile sets, complete adventures and maybe monster and character tokens.

As I have said many times in the past, Josh had inidicated on the beta Forums that the OMB currently has much of the functionality of the CMB, but it just needs to be "turned on" and that they would be doing that slowly, in stages, to make finding and fixing bugs in the VT import function that much easier to do.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.

A monster builder that can create custom monsters would interfere with their ability to charge DMs mincrotrasnaction fees for the inclusion of various monsters in the VT.  Since all the work they've been doing on the VT these past few months has been adding a microtransactions infrastructure to it, I don't see why they'd go and shoot their new business model in the foot with a working MB.



Wow, this is quite a theory. If it's true, I'd be extremely mad as will a lot of other DM's. In fact, the lack of a functioning MB is my own personal red line. I'm waiting patiently to see what happens. If your theory turns out to be true, I'm done with DDI.

So... I'd like some clarity. Can you explain exactly how WotC has been "adding a microtransactions infrastructure" to the VT? I've used it a few times and I don't see that from my end. I'm not saying it's not there, I'm just not seeing it. Please elaborate.



that guy is just a conspiracy theorist, its included in your sub but they are tinkering to where non subscribers can maybe pay to play. has nothing to do w the mb, thats just crazy talk. subscribers dont even need passcodes but we tested the pay to play which a LOT of beta members were asking for so their non subscriber friends could play
Thanks for the info. This seems much more reasonable. Hopefully a fully functioning VT is rolled out soon. I've got a few friends who want to give it a try.

As I have said many times in the past, Josh had inidicated on the beta Forums that the OMB currently has much of the functionality of the CMB, but it just needs to be "turned on" and that they would be doing that slowly, in stages, to make finding and fixing bugs in the VT import function that much easier to do.



this is a poor decision, if true. it's bad business to penalize the customers who aren't part of the invite-only-beta because you want to make it easier on your developers while they build a tool those customers don't have access too. these customers largely don't care how great your new sliced bread is going to be, they just want to be able to use the tools they do have with the same level of functionality as before.

do you have any quotes/links to statements on this that i could read?

thanks. 

48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

As I have said many times in the past, Josh had inidicated on the beta Forums that the OMB currently has much of the functionality of the CMB, but it just needs to be "turned on" and that they would be doing that slowly, in stages, to make finding and fixing bugs in the VT import function that much easier to do.



this is a poor decision, if true. it's bad business to penalize the customers who aren't part of the invite-only-beta because you want to make it easier on your developers while they build a tool those customers don't have access too. these customers largely don't care how great your new sliced bread is going to be, they just want to be able to use the tools they do have with the same level of functionality as before.

do you have any quotes/links to statements on this that i could read?

thanks. 



I've bolded part of your comments because I think you have misunderstood something here.  Everyone has access to the exact same level of functionality in the online MB.  What is being claimed is that much of the functionality of the offline builder is already coded in the online version, but has not been made available (to anyone including those in the VT beta) yet.

As I have said many times in the past, Josh had inidicated on the beta Forums that the OMB currently has much of the functionality of the CMB, but it just needs to be "turned on" and that they would be doing that slowly, in stages, to make finding and fixing bugs in the VT import function that much easier to do.



this is a poor decision, if true. it's bad business to penalize the customers who aren't part of the invite-only-beta because you want to make it easier on your developers while they build a tool those customers don't have access too. these customers largely don't care how great your new sliced bread is going to be, they just want to be able to use the tools they do have with the same level of functionality as before.

do you have any quotes/links to statements on this that i could read?

thanks. 



I've bolded part of your comments because I think you have misunderstood something here.  Everyone has access to the exact same level of functionality in the online MB.  What is being claimed is that much of the functionality of the offline builder is already coded in the online version, but has not been made available (to anyone including those in the VT beta) yet.



Correct.  That was my understanding.  They are intentionally hobbling it for everyone, so the beta testers can test the VT import functionality.  It just makes sense to do this to make the testing and troubleshooting easier.  Even though I am unlikely to ever use the VT, I have no problems with this.

And to answer sumzero's question, I don't believe Josh's forum post is there anymore.  When they took the VT and forums down a couple of months ago, it is my understanding that they wiped the message boards.  I did, however see his post and several other VT beta testers have confirmed that they read the same post and concur on the meaning.  That's the best I can do for you.

Kalex the Omen 
Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire

OSR Fan? Our Big Announcement™ is here!

Please join our forums!

Concerning Player Rules Bias
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
Concerning "Default" Rules
Kalex_the_Omen wrote:
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.